To sue someone for breach of an oral contract, you must prove the existence of a binding agreement. There are four fundamental elements on a legally binding oral or written contract: if an agreement were to go wrong, as if money was borrowed with the verbal promise of repayment and the beneficiary did not, then the case can be tried. The lender would then have to prove that the transaction took place and that the beneficiary did not repay the money to settle the legal dispute. Many oral agreements are often accepted by handshakes so that they indicate that an agreement has been reached. In addition to these four elements, a binding agreement must have a legitimate purpose and clear conditions. Therefore, the contract cannot provide money to someone who is doing something illegal or who has ambiguous or incomplete terms. If an oral contract does not interfere with one or more elements of a valid contract, it is likely that a court will declare the agreement inconclusive and unenforceable. Many states have written provisions for certain treaties that believe that oral agreements are insufficient. This means that disputes related to the routine delivery of goods and services and payment will be restricted.
One of the complications that the court takes in the event of an oral agreement is that it must be able to extract key conditions from the implementation agreement, which can be difficult if both parties do not agree on these conditions. The two sides are unseeded that there has been an agreement. Oral dispute over contract law is often based on the fact that one or both parties are clearly based on the agreement. Oral contracts are best as a simple agreement with easy-to-understand terms and evidence of the existence of the agreement. Even though oral contracts are sometimes legally binding, you take an unnecessary risk by relying on an oral agreement for everything that is important. It is always best to play it safely and design a properly written contract, signed by all agreed parties. Too often in contractual verbal situations, the evidence turns into a “he said, he said” situation that makes it difficult to know exactly what was agreed between the parties to the oral contract. As a general rule, the parties do not agree on what the terms of the contract were or how they should be interpreted.
While oral and written contracts are enforceable under Massachusetts law, oral contracts are more difficult to enforce in many situations. In order to enforce a contract, the court must be able to know and understand the essential conditions of the agreement. The parties, both reasonable, should freely approve the terms of the agreement, i.e. without influence, coercion, coercion or misreprescing of facts. The nephew and aunt accept the terms of the contract without putting pressure on each other and with the intention of fulfilling their obligations.